Bill Frantz wrote:
really used for strangers. For people we know, recognition and
memory are more compelling ways of trusting.
We can use this recognition and memory in the online world as well.
SSH automatically recognizes previously used hosts. Programs such
as the Pet Names
Ed Gerck wrote:
Ben Laurie wrote:
But doesn't that prove the point? The trust that you consequently
place in the web server because of the certificate _cannot_ be copied
to another webserver. That other webserver has to go out and buy its
own copy, with its own domain name it it.
A copy is
I agree with you, that this is not nearly fast enough.
However, this is 10 times faster then our original results, where we
were searching 100 emails in about the same amount of time. With
production code, some more optimization, esp. client side
optimizations (i.e. message caching when
[Moderator's note: Please do not top post. --Perry]
I am thinking that trust is a relationship. A trusts B. So if you
start with A trusts B and you do some operation that results in C
trusts B then you have not copied anything because A trusts B is
not equal to C trusts B. You can't
Bill Soley wrote:
I am thinking that trust is a relationship. A trusts B. So if you
start with A trusts B and you do some operation that results in C
trusts B then you have not copied anything because A trusts B is not
equal to C trusts B. You can't call that operation a copy.
Trust is
Ed Gerck wrote:
Bill Frantz wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gerck) on Monday, June 2, 2008 wrote:
To trust something, you need to receive information from sources
OTHER than the source you want to trust, and from as many other
sources as necessary according to the extent of the trust you want.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ed Gerck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the essay Better Than Free, Kevin Kelly debates which concepts hold
value online, and how to monetize those values. See
www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php
Kelly's point can be very useful: *When
Hi,
It is not an implementaion issue but a requirement of the C standard.
To avoid buffering use
setvbuf (fp, NULL, _IONBF, 0);
right after the fopen.
Ah! Thanks a lot!
Ok, I think that should be written into the man-pages of /dev/random and
fgetc/fread and other related howtos.
Best
On 2008-06-02, Adam Aviv wrote:
I recently implemented SSARES directly in python and also added
parallelism to the searching. We can now search the a large inbox
(1000+) messages in about 2-4 minutes.
Not to rain on your parade, but 1,000 messages is *not* a large inbox
and 2 to 4 minutes is
Greg Black wrote:
On 2008-06-02, Adam Aviv wrote:
I recently implemented SSARES directly in python and also added
parallelism to the searching. We can now search the a large inbox
(1000+) messages in about 2-4 minutes.
Not to rain on your parade, but 1,000 messages is *not* a large inbox
and
[Moderator's note: Please don't top post. --Perry]
Depending on the level of protection you want, you could just add a
script to your .forward to encrypt your email before delivery using
PGP/GPG. However, this will leave the headers in the clear, so you
will likely want to create an entirely new
Ben Laurie wrote:
Obviously. Clearly I am talking about a server in a different domain.
And we (Kelly and I) were talking about copying trust, where a copy is
(as usual) a reproduction, a replication of an original. If you are
copying trust from a domain, as represented by a SSL cert signed
IanG wrote:
Ed Gerck wrote:
When you look at trust in various contexts, you will still find the
need to receive information from sources OTHER than the source you
want to trust. You may use these channels under different names, such
as memory which is a special type of output that serves as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't have to trust the target site's self assertions about
its own identity because you trust the root to only validate for sites
that are what they claim to be.
From the viewpoint of the user (which is the viewpoint used by
Kelly), we see that trust can be
I'm working on the third edition of _Disappearing Cryptography_ right
now. If anyone knows of any technical errors in the second edition,
I'm willing to pay $20 for the first person to report each technical
error.
The bounty can't apply to grammatical errors because of the
complexity
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Ed Gerck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We see that the trust relationship represented by that SSL cert can be
copied without any loss, as many times as you wish
My understanding is that an SSL certificate is only a method to carry
the
I don't think anything new is being said in the Can we copy trust
discussion, so I'm calling a halt to it.
Perry
--
Perry E. Metzger[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending
From:Adam Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: TOMORROW 3 Jun - Hongxia Jin - Traitor Tracing for Anonymous Attack in
AACS Content Protection
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date:Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:48:48 -0700
Title: Traitor Tracing for Anonymous Attack in AACS Content Protection
A3: Please.
Q3: Should I avoid top posting on this mailing list?
A2: Because, by reversing the order of a conversation, it leaves the
reader without much context, and makes them read a message in an
unnatural order.
Q2: Why is top posting irritating?
A1: It is the practice of putting
On Jun 3, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Adam Aviv wrote:
Depending on the level of protection you want, you could just add a
script to your .forward to encrypt your email before delivery using
PGP/GPG. However, this will leave the headers in the clear, so you
will likely want to create an entirely new
Ben Laurie wrote:
Ed Gerck wrote:
Ben Laurie wrote:
But doesn't that prove the point? The trust that you consequently
place in the web server because of the certificate _cannot_ be copied
to another webserver. That other webserver has to go out and buy its
own copy, with its own domain name
21 matches
Mail list logo
